We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

A federal court in New York has certified a consumer-fraud class action against Kangadis Food Inc., d/b/a The Gourmet Factory, alleging that the company falsely labels its products as “100% Pure Olive Oil” when they actually contain the industrially processed substance “olive-pomace oil,” “olive-residue oil” or “Pomace.” Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc. d/b/a The Gourmet Factory, No. 13-2311 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y., order entered December 11, 2013). The court approved the named plaintiffs as class representatives and indicated that a memorandum stating the reasons for its ruling “will issue in due course.” Additional information about the lawsuit appears in Issue 492 of this Update.

On the day the order issued, the court also filed a memorandum explaining its reasons for dismissing certain claims and allowing others to proceed in an order entered in July 2013. The court dismissed for insufficient pleading the plaintiffs’

New York breach of warranty claims, express and implied; breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under New Jersey law; and unjust enrichment under New York and New Jersey law.

The court refused to dismiss claims relating to labeling a product as “100% Pure Olive Oil” because it “is a written warranty sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss” and because every relevant labeling standard regards the defendant’s products as mislabeled. According to the court, the plaintiffs adequately pleaded “that Kangadis’s label breaches the implied warranty of merchantability under New Jersey law.” The court also found sufficiently pleaded claims that the company violated the deceptive acts and practices statutes of both states and claims alleging negligent misrepresentation and fraud under New York and New Jersey law. In the court’s view, “the Complaint fully specifies who made the false statement (here, Kangadis), what the false statement was (the labeling describing the product as ‘100% Pure Olive Oil’), when the statement was made (in late 2012 or early 2013), where the statement was made (on the Capatriti containers plaintiffs purchased from the local grocery store), and how that statement was false (the product was Pomace rather than pure olive oil).”

In common with many in-house lawyers, I have limited access to (and a limited budget for) resources and rely on receiving know-how from friends and contacts in private practice. Lexology is great as it provides a daily email with the headlines in all the areas of law that I am interested in (which are all relevant to me, as I was able to choose which areas I was interested in at registration), with links to articles from a wide variety of sources.

I tend to scroll through the daily email when I am having my lunch, reading the headlines and descriptions of the articles, and click on any items that are of interest to me - that way, I feel like I am kept 'in the loop' with legal developments.

In addition to the daily email, I find the articles themselves very helpful - they set out the legal principle but most importantly, they 'boil it down' to the practical implications. When I am doing legal research, I also find the archive search function very helpful.

I have recommended the service to quite a few friends who have also found it very helpful."